The tobacco industry had a long and illustrious history funding studies showing tobacco was good for people, or at least not harmful. Although not based on scientific evidence, theirs was scientific evidence 
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/
Why is this a natural therapies issue? Depending on which research you look at the efficacy of common medical treatments for various conditions ranges from just 10-20%! The remainder fell into various categories from probably efficacious to outright dangerous. If you want to use Evidence Based Medicine (which has a specific meaning and not necessarily meaning what common sense suggests it does) as the rule to follow then every treatment your GP, specialist, surgeon, etc gives should be weighed and measured against the EBM model. If it is found to fall outside that small 10-20% of treatments that are efficacious then the taxpayer (via Medicare and/or private health rebates) should not pay. This way the government will save some very serious money. Much more than this 1% of total private health benefits paid as mentioned in the article.
Preventative health care (a strong focus of most natural health modalities) also saves money as compared to the lumbering damage control medical system we are currently financing. The old adage ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ is quite true. But that is not even being investigated.
Further to this, there are many questions to be answered regarding the EBM model including its suitability as the sole governing principle, and how it is practised
(such as what outcomes are chosen as endpoint markers, what is the predictive validity regarding the individual, how do we clean up research and publication bias, teaching clinicians how to read and critically assess research articles for design quality and outcome relevance, etc etc). Many natural therapies will never be measurable by the so called ‘gold standard’ double blind randomised placebo controlled trial. For example, you can’t do a placebo massage.This does not mean they don’t work, it means different investigative techniques need to be used. Indeed the DBRPCT has its own limitations as do all research trial designs.
This is a much bigger issue than the question of the efficacy of the extras.
Indeed. This is why the scientific community insists on peer review. Peer review is how simple errors, self-deception and bias are revealed. Why is this needed? Because scientists are as fallible as anybody else. The system is by no means perfect but in the long run it is better than anything else for understanding observable events.
We see “evidence” battles every day in the media as think tanks funded by one side of politics or the other fight it out for the public opinion high ground on behalf of their masters. All the more reason for teaching our children to question who is making each case and what they have to gain just as much as to check the facts and to seek real experts when their own knowledge runs out.
There’s also a lot of worry in the scientific community right now that replication studies are not valued enough - it’s hard to get published in a top journal with a replication study that seeks to validate another’s results. These studies are really important to validate findings that may actually be wrong (or just to reassure us!).
One local example of why validation and replication is important - a Melbourne scientist did a study on gluten intolerance. He had doubts about the validity of his original study and went back and replicated with tighter controls, ultimately finding his first study was incorrect.
Unfortunately, researchers are under a lot of pressure to be constantly producing new work and publishing in the best journals. From what I hear, replication isn’t a priority.
Where does one find a science based study of the ‘placebo effect’ that’s constantly trotted out?
Hi @moviemedia4
Put the following into your web browser for citations relating to the validity of the placebo effect:
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=validity+of+the+placebo+effect&btnG=
Hope that helps.
Köszönöm, Tamás. It does help, sort of. Very academic, inevitably!
Nagyon szívesen 
Perhaps this would be more accessible:
It is an interesting example (and one of the more studied ones) of the ways that our minds influence our bodies. You may know of cases where a person is ‘deceived’ and reports that a treatment has an effect because they believe it will. Very often this comes from accepting the word of a charismatic leader. This is the basis of much faith healing, where the practitioner may (but not always) also believe in what they are doing - homeopathy comes to mind. It is also behind simple skulduggery practised by con men - think Peter Foster. More interesting is that the outcome can be objectively measured, it isn’t just what people say about themselves.
The effect goes even further though, there are studies that show the effect can work to some degree even when the subject is told that the treatment is a fake! The human mind is a wonderful thing.
I believe in and use natural therapies and am OK with them not being publically funded, however I also believe that those of us who look after our health should not be funding the PBS scheme either. Many of the drugs that are subsidised are for conditions that are preventable with good diet and exercise and often once patients start on one drug, they get side effects which then leads to the prescription of another drug and another and so on
Yoga and other natural therapies no longer covered by private health insurance:
I have never had success with alternate therapies and there is very little science to back their claims so I think our tax dollars should go to funding proven medical treatments. To take your argument to the extreme the PBS wouldn’t fund cancer treatment, drug addiction or anything related to alcohol or conditions brought about by lack of exercise and a proper diet. It could be one of your loved ones being denied treatment.
You raise some interesting points.
I often wonder if some who choose natural therapies take a greater interest in their personal well being, and as a consequence lead a healthier lifestyle? Natural therapies might provide the motivation or emotional support, and not necessarily any genuine scientific medical outcomes.
I have also known some who are wedded to natural therapies, but chose to rely on conventional medical science for diagnosis and cure of serious cancers.
It is like all things decided by government of the day. The needs and outcomes are reassessed every time we exercise the opportunity to vote, until the next time!
